Monday, March 3, 2014 1:20:55 AMHell no. I (and the rest of Britain who weren't politicians) were vocal about it when the Americans decided to go in. We as a nation still remember trying it the first time. The Russians must have had a good laugh at our expense.

If you really must invade sovereign nations without reason, please do it with just your own troops at stake.

Sunday, March 2, 2014 8:25:15 AMAnyways, those resources you mentioned is mainly marble, gems, copper, and gold, and the lazuli and opium which @slut_etta mentioned. All of them we don't need, we can get them cheaper and safer elsewhere in the world and most of them from our own soil.

Plus if you were going in for resources, why Afghanistan? Why not the Congo, Nepal, or Zaire where we could have easily bought off the governments in secret and actually have more and better quality of each of the resources that are found in Afghanistan for a much cheaper political and monetary cost. We don`t even sell Afghan quarries machinery, they largely still use stone chisels which severely hampers output. The largest american corporations in Afghanistan are building and security contractors, not mining contractors.

Sunday, March 2, 2014 8:24:05 AM@piratefish: We went their because our enemy Al Qaeda had their main stronghold there. We and all of our NATO allies only went in after the attacks on our embassies, the U.S.S. Cole, the first world trade center bombing, the Sept. 11 attacks and countless hostage taking and murders. The war also allowed us to better react to Iran.

When we went in we killed and crippled multible Al Qaeda groups and their wahabist allies. We began building schools, roads, election centers, and hospitals not quarries. Right now there are 66 quarries in Afghanistan, none are owned by any US interests. In fact, we didn't even do a geological survey until 2010, 9 years after we first went in. And we still have yet to capitalize on them.